I've hooked up with Google and will soon be providing
a Google search of both the Web and skepdic.com from most of my Web pages.
The searches are fast and relevant. I determined that the inconvenience of a
few ads at the top and bottom of the search-results pages is worth it.

You will also notice Gooooogle ads on a few pages. I
can't put them on all of my pages because it seems like 75% of the time the
automated ad maker wants me to advertise some psychic service. Some of the
ads are incongruent but in my sick way I find them amusing, so I am leaving
them up. For example, the ads on the
Occam's razor page direct
readers to a site that will let you hear God speak in 30 different ways and
another site that will help you find out what God wants you to do with your
life.

The answer, by the way, is that God wants you to
spread skepticism to the four corners of the round earth and leave a copy of
The Skeptic's Dictionary next to every Gideon Bible you come upon.

Andy Doddington wrote to suggest a new entry for
The Skeptic's Dictionary: something along the lines of 'Trawling for
Correlations'.

What Andy is referring to is the practice among many
scientists of mining data that has not been produced in controlled
studies to find a correlation that, according to some arbitrary statistical
formula, is deemed significant. The scientists then assert or imply
that there is some sort of causal connection between the correlated items.
That would be bad enough (logically speaking) but many scientists then
use another arbitrary statistical formula to assess the relative risk of
producing E by using C if C correlates with E. Andy's example is from
a study asserting that using ibuprofen and other non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) increases the risk of having a heart
attack.

The four-year study was done in the UK and involved
9,218 patients between the ages of 25 and 100 who suffered a heart attack
for the first time. The researchers got information from the patients
regarding prescriptions for NSAIDS and the findings were adjusted for other
known factors in heart disease (smoking, obesity, age, history of heart
disease). "Researchers found that for those prescribed NSAIDS in the three
months just before the heart attack, the risk increased compared with those
who had not taken these drugs in the previous three years. For ibuprofen,
the risk increased by almost a quarter (24%), and for diclofenac it rose by
over a half (55%)."

Andy writes: "Common sense indicates that there are bound to be some
such correlations, regardless of whether there is a causative relationship.
Indeed, given the popularity of ibuprufen as a painkiller, it would be
surprising if this did not appear at some point."

We should add that the researchers went on to claim
that the data imply that "one extra patient for every 521 patients was
likely to suffer a first-time heart attack" by using ibuprofen. In other
words, if ibuprofen had not been related to risk of heart attack,
there should have been about 17 or 18 fewer first-time heart attack
sufferers in their study. In other words, they found about 0.02 percent more
cases than expected. That doesn't sound quite as bad as an increased risk
of 24%.

I can see Andy's point but apparently this study
compared those who used aspirin to those who used NSAIDS. The data might
also be used to suggest that aspirin reduced the risk of heart
attack. If there is a problem with this kind of study, it is probably in
overstating the risk of using ibuprofen. There are certainly other factors
to consider besides a slight increased risk of heart attack when deciding
whether to prescribe or to take a medication.

Actually, I'm more concerned about another kind of
research: the kind where the scientist is hell-bent on finding some sort of
statistical evidence that something is either good or bad for you, depending
on whether the scientist is promoting the something or is on a crusade to
convince the world of the harm the something is doing. For example, on June
12, 2005,
The Observerran an article by Bob Woffinden with the headline:

Fluoride water 'causes cancer'
Boys at risk from bone tumours, shock research reveals.

The evidence for this alleged causal link between
fluoride and bone cancer in boys is to be found in Dr. Elise Bassin's
dissertation, presented for her degree at the Harvard School of Dental
Medicine in April 2001. How good is this research? Woffinden writes that the
dissertation "obviously had merit because Bassin was awarded her doctorate."
I'm sure that statement would bring a smile to many a professor's face.
Woffinden also writes that "Bassin told The Observer her work was
still going through the peer-review process, and she hopes that it will then
be published." Peer-review is slow but it shouldn't take more than four
years to publish new research that establishes a strong link
between fluoridation and cancer.

Woffinden's article makes it sound like there was a
conspiracy to prevent the public from having access to the work of Dr.
Bassin. "Environmental organisations were repeatedly denied access to it,
and even bodies such as the US National Academy of Sciences could not get
hold of a copy. Eventually two researchers from the Fluoride Action Network
were allowed to read it in the rare books and special collections room at
Harvard medical library." If this is true, it is very odd. Maybe they do
things differently in the east. Here on the west coast the last step toward
getting one's doctorate is to present a copy (signed by the members of one's
doctoral committee) to the university library, where it is then catalogued
and made available for all to see.

What did these investigators from the Fluoride Action
Network discover? We're told by Woffinden that the "research suggests that
boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an
increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and
19." This is a very rare type of bone cancer and, according to Woffinden,
accounts for about 3% of childhood cancers.

Environmental Working
Group (EWG) claims it has had Bassin's research peer-reviewed and in its
view the data is strong enough to warrant asking "that fluoride in tap water
be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or
anticipated to cause cancer in humans." EWG lists as one of its
accomplishments that they fact-checked a report by ABC 20/20 reporter John
Stossel in which he claimed that organic food was bad for consumers and
showed that "he had fabricated two sets of test results. The network ordered
Stossel to make an unprecedented apology on live national television."
Stossel's version of the incident is a bit different.
He
claims a producer misunderstood the results of scientific tests: "In my
report, I said 'our tests' found no pesticide residue on organic or
conventional food. Turned out a producer misunderstood the scientists who
did the testing for us. They had only searched for bacteria. They did no
tests for pesticide residue."

EWG has been instrumental in getting pesticides banned
and has been in the forefront of several other environmental issues
involving government and corporate abuse of power and seeming indifference
toward public health.

Here is
EWG's
statement on the science that supports their contention that "a
substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed science strongly suggests that
adding fluoride to tap water may not be the safest way to achieve the dental
health benefits of fluoridation."

The overall weight of the evidence strongly supports the conclusion
that exposure to fluoride in tap water during the mid-childhood growth
spurt between ages 5 and 10 increases the incidence of osteosarcoma in
boys ages 10 through 19. Biologically, the link between fluoride in tap
water and bone cancer in boys is highly plausible. Fifty percent of
ingested fluoride is deposited in bones, and fluoride is a mitogen that
stimulates bone growth in the growing ends of the bones where the
osteosarcoma occurs. Fluoride is also a confirmed mutagenic agent in
humans, which suggests that fluoride can cause genetic damage in bone
cells where it is actively deposited, in this case precisely where the
osteosarcoma arises. Animal studies add further credence to the potential
link between fluoride and bone cancer in males. The only two animal cancer
bioassays conducted with fluoride both show rare bone tumors, many of
which were malignant, in male as opposed to female test animals. And
finally, three high quality epidemiology studies each show a strong
association between fluoride in tap water and osteosarcoma in boys. While
several epidemiology studies have failed to find an association between
fluoride and osteosarcoma in boys, these studies typically did not look
for a relationship between age of exposure to fluoride and the incidence
of bone cancer in young males.

In other words, we must take their word for it that
Bassin's research is solid and that those studies that didn't find what she
found didn't dig deep enough into the data. However, the reasons they give
for believing that the connection is highly plausible should hold for girls
as well as boys. Without knowing how many subjects were in the animal
studies and in Bassin's studies, and how many individuals were afflicted
with bone cancer, there is no way to assess whether the fact that both found
an association with males only is of any significance. And, of course,
without knowing the details of Bassin's research, it is not possible to
evaluate it.

EWG does tell us that

Bassin's doctoral dissertation was based
on a reanalysis of data from another study that found no association
between drinking water fluoride levels and bone cancer, co-authored by
Harvard Department Chair Dr. Chester Douglass. In her reanalysis, Bassin
examined the same cases and controls used by Douglass in 1995. Dr. Bassin,
however, refined the analysis by limiting cases to individuals exposed at
less than 20 years old and conducted a more detailed analysis of fluoride
exposure and age-specific effects. The result was a very strong
correlation between fluoride exposure and bone cancer, particularly for
boys exposed at ages 6 through 8.

Thus, however many subjects were in Dr. Douglass's
study, Bassin's data is a subset of that data consisting of fewer subjects.
I could not discover how many subjects were in Bassin's data by reviewing
the data posted by EWG.

EWG also tells us that the U.S. Public Health Service
(USPHS) did a study in 1991 and "found a significant association between
fluoride exposure and bone cancer in boys." In 1992 the New Jersey
Department of Health (NJDH) "found that young males living in fluoridated
communities had significantly higher rates of osteosarcoma than young males
living in non-fluoridated areas; males 10-19 years old in fluoridated areas
were 6.9 times more likely to develop osteosarcoma than those in
non-fluoridated areas."

It appears to me that EWG has an agenda and they are
using the Bassin work to support that agenda. For some reason, the rest of
the scientific community was not bowled over by the studies done over a
decade ago. Apparently, no follow-up studies have been done and Bassin did
not do her own study but mined the data of somebody else's study to support
her conclusion.

Is there a causal connection between fluoridation of
public water supplies and bone cancer in boys? Is there a significant risk
for bone cancer that isn't outweighed by benefits from fluoridation? I don't
know and I don't think EWG knows either. The National Academy of Sciences
says it will release a report on fluoride safety in February 2006. Maybe we
should all wait for that report before passing judgment on fluouridation. On
the other hand, given the political history of this issue, it's unlikely
that a single report by a scientific group is going to settle anything for
the main combatants.

I haven't noticed
any serious attempt to introduce ID into science classes here in Australia,
and not because the Christian extremists would not be delighted to be able
to do it. I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you, but the USA is the
only first world nation that is completely nuts at this particular juncture
of history.

We are the world leader in this area, that's for sure,
but other countries are starting to follow us down this path to phony
science in the name of religion. Holland, another land of the free, is now
debating the issue. Ivo Snijders writes from The Netherlands:

The Dutch Minister of Education, Maris van der Hoeven
has announced that she wants to organize a discussion between scientists and
advocates of ID. She believes that since the theory of evolution is
incomplete, ID is a good alternative. Of course, the announcement has met
with widespread disbelief and resistance. She insists the debate will take
place at the ministry.

I might remind Paul that all it takes is a few
extremists with a good political action plan - and the ID folks have a very
good one - to disrupt a country's science education system. No country is
immune from the kind of movement that has occurred here. It starts with
something like this Web site in Australia,
John Mark Ministries.
The first step is to tell the world that ID is not creationism but science
that makes no mention of a creator (wink, wink) and that it is the fanatical
Darwinists who are giving that false impression to protect their own vital
interests in promoting atheism and materialism. Next, you convince a bunch
of scientifically illiterate journalists and school board members that ID is
a serious challenge to evolution and that the ID issue is very controversial
in the science of evolution (which it isn't). Finally, you work on getting
the ignorant press to report on how unfair it is not to teach the
controversy and let people study both sides of the issue and make up their
own minds. Keep an eye out, Paul. Don't be surprised if this movie comes to
a theater near you.

Speaking of the ID wars in this country....It has been
announced in Blufton, Indiana, that intelligent design will continue to be a part of the
Bluffton-Harrison’s High School science curriculum. The school board voted
4-1 to continue requiring the district’s science educators to discuss
“appropriate theories” — such as intelligent design and evolution — and give
a “fair and balanced” presentation when teaching about the origin of the
universe and life. Sounds good and it will probably be about as fair and
balanced as anything you'll see on Fox.

In the UK the culture wars over ID heated up when
Richard Dawkins published an article about the Kansas state board of
education in
The Times entitled "Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant." On
this side of the pond, one of the Kansas board members called evolution a
fairy tale. (See
Newsletter 55
for more on Kansas.) Michael Ruse has a new book out on the wars:
The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Harvard, 2005).
Ruse,
a Darwinian, seems to be calling for a kinder, gentler approach geared to
understanding each other rather than to seeing things in black and white and
in terms of irreconcilable differences.

Dylan Evans, a professor of robotics at the University of West England
in Bristol, wrote an article for the Guardian of London deriding the
old-fashioned, "19th-century" atheism of Richard Dawkins and
Jonathan Miller. Evans proposes a truce and a new, modern atheism that
"values religion, treats science as simply a means to an end and finds the
meaning of life in art."
Salman Rushdie (in a letter to the Toronto Star) responded to
Evans's plea by noting that "Such a truce would have a chance of working only
if it were reciprocal — if the world's religions agreed to value the atheist
position and to concede its ethical basis, if they respected the discoveries
and achievements of modern science, even when these discoveries challenge
religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life's
multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called "revealed" texts. No such
reciprocal arrangement exists, however, nor is there the slightest chance
that such an accommodation could ever be reached." Amen to that, brother.

A new Gallup poll found that in America 25% of us
(plus or minus 3%) don't believe in anything paranormal. That means, of
course, that about three-fourths of us believe in things like ESP, ghosts,
astrology, channeling, and communicating with spirits. Belief in demonic
possession hasn't changed much in the past ten years. It's hard to believe
that in the 21st century in the most technologically advanced country in the
world this belief is still strong. Four out of every ten adults in the US
believe in possession by the devil. According to Gallup, "Christians are a
little more likely to hold some paranormal beliefs than non-Christians (75%
vs. 66%, respectively), but both groups show a sizeable majority with such
beliefs." More than half of us believe in psychic healing. About a fourth of
us believe "that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's
lives" and "that extra-terrestrial beings have visited earth at some time in
the past." One-fifth of us still believe in witches.

No wonder intelligent design is considered a viable
option by many people.

I received an inquiry from Tom Zeller at the New York Times
regarding my opinion on the nature of gullibility online. The
Annenberg Public
Policy Center has come out with a report and some
advice on shopping. I'll mention just
one item: 49% of those surveyed didn’t know that banks do not send
their customers e-mails that ask them to click on a link to verify their
account. Nor do they cold-call customers and request social security or bank
account numbers. The rule of thumb I follow is: Never give a social
security number or bank account number to anyone unless you are the one who
has initiated the call or the inquiry.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that most people who use the WWW are
ignorant of how Web sites are created, URLs rented, e-mail addresses
manipulated, and the like. Technological ignorance, and not just from
newbies, prevents many people from recognizing a well designed phony mimic.
Add to that the usual mix--social life depends on trust, people are greedy
and self-deceived about their ability to recognize a con--and you have a
very inviting arena for crooks trolling for victims. Also the relative ease
and inexpensiveness of WWW scams contributes to the massive quantity of the
schemes. Finally, I don't think many users of the Internet realize that
there are virtually no rules and even fewer enforcers of rules in
cyberspace. There are some
good sites that teach people about schemes,
scams, and frauds but they're far outnumbered by the schemers and probably
always will be.

I do think there is a significant difference between those who are
victimized by professional
phishers and those who are duped by chain letters
and e-mail rumors. The latter are probably duped offline as frequently as
online. The former are probably not especially gullible. But we're talking
about so many different kinds of scams and schemes that it probably isn't
wise to generalize too much here.

I wrote
a piece on hoaxes
and frauds a couple of years ago and argued that there isn't any surefire
way to avoid being deceived,
no matter how great one's critical thinking skills are. I also came up with
two guiding rules: 1. Don't trust people you trust. and 2. Don't expect any
help from the media. There are some exceptions, I know. But the media is
generally not in the forefront of fighting scams, frauds, and hoaxes. This
is especially true of television. For example, rather than investigate why
some people in law enforcement are led to believe that some people are
psychic crime fighters, TV will create a series like Psychic Detectives or
Medium, talk shows will host "psychics," etc. Who can blame them since
the public loves such stuff. The print media sin more by omission. Pursuing
fraud on the Internet doesn't seem to be much of a priority for anybody.

Magneural6.S
promises to expand your mind with magnets and one-celled bacteria. "Unique
Magnetic Properties have been found in the cell and brain tissues of all
animals including humans, explaining Extraordinary Animal Sixth Sense..."
You can get a 30-day supply for just $79 if you act fast. Hurry, supplies
are limited to the terminally gullible!

One method of attempting to stifle free speech is to
sue or threaten to sue a critic. There is an interesting account of a suit
filed by one of Amway's
children, Team of Destiny, against a very vocal online critic named Scott
Larsen. The details are too complicated to get into in a newsletter, but
some of you might find them interesting. If so, see The
Quixtar Blog, "the
personal journal of the husband of a former Quixtar IBO." An IBO is an
independent business owner, the term Amway folks use now to speak of their
upline and downline distributors.

On Tuesday, June 21, not only will summer begin in our
hemisphere but Inquiring
Minds will be launching an online quarterly newsletter for kids,
according to Amanda Chesworth, Educational Director, Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. I am going to try to
squeeze out an article for the first issue, but if I fail, check the Fall
issue. The URL will be
www.inquiringminds.org/newsletter/.

Support our work!You can purchase your copy ofThe Skeptic's Dictionary
online fromAmazon.com or from your local bookseller.
The perfect gift for the graduate, the vacationer, or the honeymooner!